Brennan Associates v. Radioshack Corporation
The defendant's argument challenging use and occupancy payment amounts did not relate to the physical use and occupancy of the premises and was not a claim that properly could be considered during a disbursement hearing under C.G.S. §47a-26f. Brennan Associates brought this summary process action against RadioShack Corporation for possession of property in Trumbull. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for use and occupancy payments to be paid into the court during the pendency of the proceedings. The defendant made such payments until it vacated the property. The plaintiff filed a motion to disburse funds. At the hearing on the motion, the defendant argued that it was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing pursuant to C.G.S. §47a-26f. The court denied the plaintiff's motion reasoning that it could not act until a final judgment issued. The plaintiff withdrew the summary process action and filed a second motion to disburse funds. The court granted the motion based on the claims of the parties at the prior hearing, finding further argument unnecessary. The court determined that the defendant was not entitled to a C.G.S. §47a-26f disbursement hearing because the defendant had not alleged claims arising during the pendency of the proceedings after the order for payment, as statutorily required for such a hearing. The defendant appealed claiming that the court abused its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion without holding the requested hearing. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. The defendant, essentially, was seeking to challenge the court's initial order regarding the amount of use and occupancy payments in a C.G.S. §47a-26f hearing. The amount of such payment was resolved by the court at the time of the order for use and occupancy payments, rather than after that order. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the claim did not arise during the pendency of the proceedings after that order. Furthermore, the claim did not relate to the physical use and occupancy of the premises. The trial court properly held that the defendant could not obtain the relief sought by way of a C.G.S. §47a-26f hearing and, therefore, such a hearing was unnecessary.